Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

You've still failed to suggest a viable way in which Spock could "repair" the timeline without risking severe disruption of it in other ways.

It really shouldn't be possible to repair a timeline in a way that totally restores the original timeline. That's like trying to unscramble an egg. Yet Star Trek characters have done that countless times. We just have to accept the illogic of it, due to longstanding tradition.

lawman wrote:

Tyberius wrote:

lawman wrote:

I've never argued that the MWI approach to this story is impossible. I've just argued that it's unnecessary and undesirable, and moreover that even if we accept it for the sake of argument, it doesn't actually explain Spock's motivations as questioned in this thread.

It absolutely does. If Spock discovered that the many worlds interpretation was fact, there would be absolutely no reason to time travel, as you split the universe anyway.

And did Spock make that "discovery" somewhere in this movie? Did he have a single line of dialogue to that effect? Perhaps when I was out getting popcorn? No? No. Then how exactly do you see anything being "explained"? All you have is sheer speculation, just like everyone else in this thread.

What happened when you were getting popcorn: the screenwriters interjected a rather glaring and awkward (but necessarily so, since there's no other way to do it) scene where the characters stand around on the bridge and in essence tell the audience that "hey, this isn't the normal time travel thing. This is a new universe, not time travel per se."

How did they know that? Well, they shouldn't. There's no way for them to know something like that. An altered timeline should be indistinguishable from a different universe, for the people inside the timeline and/or universe.* The screenwriters downloaded that info into their brains, because that's the only way to get that information across to the audience within the context of the movie. It was so clumsy that I almost started giggling in the movie theater when it happened, but I immediately understood the intent behind it. To make it any more obvious, Orci and Kurtzman would have had to wander into the scene and directly tell us their intention.

Once again, we have to accept the illogic of it, because the screenwriters want us to accept it. And we've accepted nonsense in Star Trek before, so why balk at this incident? At least it's a type of illogic that I haven't seen before. Originality should count for something.

*Which raises an interesting point: is the Mirror Universe actually a different timeline within the same Star Trek universe, or an actual different universe, as it is usually considered? The only reason it seems like a different universe is because of the massive difference compared with the usual timeline thing, where the difference is localized and not so total. But a timeline could be so disrupted that you get huge variations like that.

Maybe the reason the MU is considered a different universe is because a transporter - which generally is used to move in space rather than time - was used to get there. But why shouldn't a transporter malfunction move you in time rather than space?

Last edited by Temis the Vorta; March 21 2010 at 08:25 PM.
Reason: argh! getting sucked into this again...

Even if traveling back in time means the Prime universe you're leaving won't change, isn't it worth doing so given you're creating another in which the horrible thing that happened in yours doesn't happen? Our O'Brien died in an early DS9 episode and we got his future self for the remainder of the series, but we don't care because he's still the same man even if his "quarks don't resonate in the same frequency as our own" or whatever that was.

You've still failed to suggest a viable way in which Spock could "repair" the timeline without risking severe disruption of it in other ways.

It really shouldn't be possible to repair a timeline in a way that totally restores the original timeline. That's like trying to unscramble an egg. Yet Star Trek characters have done that countless times. We just have to accept the illogic of it, due to longstanding tradition.

lawman wrote:

Tyberius wrote:

It absolutely does. If Spock discovered that the many worlds interpretation was fact, there would be absolutely no reason to time travel, as you split the universe anyway.

And did Spock make that "discovery" somewhere in this movie? Did he have a single line of dialogue to that effect? Perhaps when I was out getting popcorn? No? No. Then how exactly do you see anything being "explained"? All you have is sheer speculation, just like everyone else in this thread.

What happened when you were getting popcorn: the screenwriters interjected a rather glaring and awkward (but necessarily so, since there's no other way to do it) scene where the characters stand around on the bridge and in essence tell the audience that "hey, this isn't the normal time travel thing. This is a new universe, not time travel per se."

How did they know that? Well, they shouldn't. There's no way for them to know something like that. An altered timeline should be indistinguishable from a different universe, for the people inside the timeline and/or universe.* The screenwriters downloaded that info into their brains, because that's the only way to get that information across to the audience within the context of the movie. It was so clumsy that I almost started giggling in the movie theater when it happened, but I immediately understood the intent behind it. To make it any more obvious, Orci and Kurtzman would have had to wander into the scene and directly tell us their intention.

Once again, we have to accept the illogic of it, because the screenwriters want us to accept it. And we've accepted nonsense in Star Trek before, so why balk at this incident? At least it's a type of illogic that I haven't seen before. Originality should count for something.

*Which raises an interesting point: is the Mirror Universe actually a different timeline within the same Star Trek universe, or an actual different universe, as it is usually considered? The only reason it seems like a different universe is because of the massive difference compared with the usual timeline thing, where the difference is localized and not so total. But a timeline could be so disrupted that you get huge variations like that.

Maybe the reason the MU is considered a different universe is because a transporter - which generally is used to move in space rather than time - was used to get there. But why shouldn't a transporter malfunction move you in time rather than space?

I think the MU is different in nature, it works subtley differently than the PrimeU. It seems to me to be something like the universe the Crime Syndicate of America comes from (evil Justice League from another universe).

__________________
"New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?' " - H. G. Wells

You've still failed to suggest a viable way in which Spock could "repair" the timeline without risking severe disruption of it in other ways.

It really shouldn't be possible to repair a timeline in a way that totally restores the original timeline. That's like trying to unscramble an egg. Yet Star Trek characters have done that countless times. We just have to accept the illogic of it, due to longstanding tradition.

lawman wrote:

Tyberius wrote:

It absolutely does. If Spock discovered that the many worlds interpretation was fact, there would be absolutely no reason to time travel, as you split the universe anyway.

And did Spock make that "discovery" somewhere in this movie? Did he have a single line of dialogue to that effect? Perhaps when I was out getting popcorn? No? No. Then how exactly do you see anything being "explained"? All you have is sheer speculation, just like everyone else in this thread.

What happened when you were getting popcorn: the screenwriters interjected a rather glaring and awkward (but necessarily so, since there's no other way to do it) scene where the characters stand around on the bridge and in essence tell the audience that "hey, this isn't the normal time travel thing. This is a new universe, not time travel per se."

How did they know that? Well, they shouldn't. There's no way for them to know something like that. An altered timeline should be indistinguishable from a different universe, for the people inside the timeline and/or universe.* The screenwriters downloaded that info into their brains, because that's the only way to get that information across to the audience within the context of the movie. It was so clumsy that I almost started giggling in the movie theater when it happened, but I immediately understood the intent behind it. To make it any more obvious, Orci and Kurtzman would have had to wander into the scene and directly tell us their intention.

Once again, we have to accept the illogic of it, because the screenwriters want us to accept it. And we've accepted nonsense in Star Trek before, so why balk at this incident? At least it's a type of illogic that I haven't seen before. Originality should count for something.

*Which raises an interesting point: is the Mirror Universe actually a different timeline within the same Star Trek universe, or an actual different universe, as it is usually considered? The only reason it seems like a different universe is because of the massive difference compared with the usual timeline thing, where the difference is localized and not so total. But a timeline could be so disrupted that you get huge variations like that.

Maybe the reason the MU is considered a different universe is because a transporter - which generally is used to move in space rather than time - was used to get there. But why shouldn't a transporter malfunction move you in time rather than space?

If Enterprise is taken into consideration, the Mirror Universe started (implicitly) at First Contact. Well, it's one idea.

You've still failed to suggest a viable way in which Spock could "repair" the timeline without risking severe disruption of it in other ways.

It really shouldn't be possible to repair a timeline in a way that totally restores the original timeline. That's like trying to unscramble an egg. Yet Star Trek characters have done that countless times. We just have to accept the illogic of it, due to longstanding tradition.

lawman wrote:

And did Spock make that "discovery" somewhere in this movie? Did he have a single line of dialogue to that effect? Perhaps when I was out getting popcorn? No? No. Then how exactly do you see anything being "explained"? All you have is sheer speculation, just like everyone else in this thread.

What happened when you were getting popcorn: the screenwriters interjected a rather glaring and awkward (but necessarily so, since there's no other way to do it) scene where the characters stand around on the bridge and in essence tell the audience that "hey, this isn't the normal time travel thing. This is a new universe, not time travel per se."

How did they know that? Well, they shouldn't. There's no way for them to know something like that. An altered timeline should be indistinguishable from a different universe, for the people inside the timeline and/or universe.* The screenwriters downloaded that info into their brains, because that's the only way to get that information across to the audience within the context of the movie. It was so clumsy that I almost started giggling in the movie theater when it happened, but I immediately understood the intent behind it. To make it any more obvious, Orci and Kurtzman would have had to wander into the scene and directly tell us their intention.

Once again, we have to accept the illogic of it, because the screenwriters want us to accept it. And we've accepted nonsense in Star Trek before, so why balk at this incident? At least it's a type of illogic that I haven't seen before. Originality should count for something.

*Which raises an interesting point: is the Mirror Universe actually a different timeline within the same Star Trek universe, or an actual different universe, as it is usually considered? The only reason it seems like a different universe is because of the massive difference compared with the usual timeline thing, where the difference is localized and not so total. But a timeline could be so disrupted that you get huge variations like that.

Maybe the reason the MU is considered a different universe is because a transporter - which generally is used to move in space rather than time - was used to get there. But why shouldn't a transporter malfunction move you in time rather than space?

If Enterprise is taken into consideration, the Mirror Universe started (implicitly) at First Contact. Well, it's one idea.

In the title sequence wasn't the Terran Empire flag on the Moon instead of the US flag, that would imply the Mirror Universe diverged way before First Contact.

It really shouldn't be possible to repair a timeline in a way that totally restores the original timeline. That's like trying to unscramble an egg. Yet Star Trek characters have done that countless times. We just have to accept the illogic of it, due to longstanding tradition.
What happened when you were getting popcorn: the screenwriters interjected a rather glaring and awkward (but necessarily so, since there's no other way to do it) scene where the characters stand around on the bridge and in essence tell the audience that "hey, this isn't the normal time travel thing. This is a new universe, not time travel per se."

How did they know that? Well, they shouldn't. There's no way for them to know something like that. An altered timeline should be indistinguishable from a different universe, for the people inside the timeline and/or universe.* The screenwriters downloaded that info into their brains, because that's the only way to get that information across to the audience within the context of the movie. It was so clumsy that I almost started giggling in the movie theater when it happened, but I immediately understood the intent behind it. To make it any more obvious, Orci and Kurtzman would have had to wander into the scene and directly tell us their intention.

Once again, we have to accept the illogic of it, because the screenwriters want us to accept it. And we've accepted nonsense in Star Trek before, so why balk at this incident? At least it's a type of illogic that I haven't seen before. Originality should count for something.

*Which raises an interesting point: is the Mirror Universe actually a different timeline within the same Star Trek universe, or an actual different universe, as it is usually considered? The only reason it seems like a different universe is because of the massive difference compared with the usual timeline thing, where the difference is localized and not so total. But a timeline could be so disrupted that you get huge variations like that.

Maybe the reason the MU is considered a different universe is because a transporter - which generally is used to move in space rather than time - was used to get there. But why shouldn't a transporter malfunction move you in time rather than space?

If Enterprise is taken into consideration, the Mirror Universe started (implicitly) at First Contact. Well, it's one idea.

In the title sequence wasn't the Terran Empire flag on the Moon instead of the US flag, that would imply the Mirror Universe diverged way before First Contact.

Even if traveling back in time means the Prime universe you're leaving won't change, isn't it worth doing so given you're creating another in which the horrible thing that happened in yours doesn't happen? Our O'Brien died in an early DS9 episode and we got his future self for the remainder of the series, but we don't care because he's still the same man even if his "quarks don't resonate in the same frequency as our own" or whatever that was.

Sounds like an infinite loop to me...every time you created a timeline where you succeeded, you'd be creating another where you failed.

__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"

Even if traveling back in time means the Prime universe you're leaving won't change, isn't it worth doing so given you're creating another in which the horrible thing that happened in yours doesn't happen?

It's explicit in the film that Spock Prime wants to hang around and help the Vulcan survivors ( and probably also help the nu-verse get "back on track" in other ways ).
If more time travel is important to him it can wait.

Even if traveling back in time means the Prime universe you're leaving won't change, isn't it worth doing so given you're creating another in which the horrible thing that happened in yours doesn't happen?

It's explicit in the film that Spock Prime wants to hang around and help the Vulcan survivors ( and probably also help the nu-verse get "back on track" in other ways ).
If more time travel is important to him it can wait.

If we assume that Spock has reasoned that MWI has occurred, then going back in time would be effectively abandoning his own people in the reality he would be leaving.

If we assume that Spock has reasoned that MWI has occurred, then going back in time would be effectively abandoning his own people in the reality he would be leaving.

That's what I'm saying. But he could always do it when approaching the end of his lifespan, after helping the Abramsverse Vulcans and others as much as he could for however many years. By that point Spock Prime will presumably have faded out of the story, unless Abrams has a spectacular death scene planned for him in STXII or STXIII, so the whole question will be moot since we won't really know if he did or didn't. In any event it's not a problem for STXI.

If we assume that Spock has reasoned that MWI has occurred, then going back in time would be effectively abandoning his own people in the reality he would be leaving.

That's what I'm saying. But he could always do it when approaching the end of his lifespan, after helping the Abramsverse Vulcans and others as much as he could for however many years. By that point Spock Prime will presumably have faded out of the story, unless Abrams has a spectacular death scene planned for him in STXII or STXIII, so the whole question will be moot since we won't really know if he did or didn't. In any event it's not a problem for STXI.

It's not my personal belief that he would, I'm just following up on the supposition that more time travel would be "worth doing" even in MWI. Even if we were to assume that Spock felt this way, it's not something that would necessarily be covered within the scope of the film.

But in MWI further timetravel would NOT be back to a time earlier in the timeline you left, it would be back in time to another, different universe/timeline. Any changes you do there would screw up that Universe. You'd actually be messing around where you shouldn't be. This Spock knows that, any attempt to fix things would be illogical.

But in MWI further timetravel would NOT be back to a time earlier in the timeline you left, it would be back in time to another, different universe/timeline. Any changes you do there would screw up that Universe.

I know that. I was responding to this: Even if traveling back in time means the Prime universe you're leaving won't change, isn't it worth doing so given you're creating another in which the horrible thing that happened in yours doesn't happen?